Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are sent for review only if they pass an initial evaluation based on their format and thematic scope. This evaluation is conducted promptly to avoid unnecessary delays.

Under normal circumstances, the review process typically takes up to four weeks, but in exceptional cases, it may extend to two months. The entire duration from manuscript submission to publication averages around 90 days.

The reviewing procedure is as follows:

-The author submits the manuscript.
-The Editor assigns reviewers to assess the manuscript.
-Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, theoretical and methodological soundness, coherence of analysis, and its ability to effectively communicate to readers.
-The Editor prepares a decision based on the reviewers' feedback and sends it to the author.

Please note that the review process for submitted papers in this journal follows a double-blind peer review system.

Peer Review:

All submitted papers undergo a peer-review process, specifically a double-blind peer review. This means that reviewers are unaware of the authors' identities, and vice versa. At least two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript, and the typical review period is four weeks, although this timeframe may be adjusted during the editorial process.

The selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the editors, ensuring their expertise in the subject area while avoiding any affiliation with the authors' institution or recent collaborations. Reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest related to the research, authors, or funding sources. If reviewers feel unqualified or unable to conduct a timely review, they should promptly notify the Editor.

Reviews must be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments.

Confidentiality is crucial, and all manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents.

Authors submit their manuscripts to the Editorial Office through the online system, receiving an acknowledgment of receipt. The Chief Editor conducts an initial review, assisted by Section Editors or Associate Editors. The manuscript is checked for adherence to the Journal's scope, formal requirements, and style. If deemed unsuitable, the author is promptly informed, resulting in direct rejection. Suitable manuscripts meeting the Journal's criteria are sent for review. Depending on the type of paper, some manuscripts may be accepted for publication immediately by the Chief Editor.

Before sending the manuscript for review, the Editor ensures that it conforms to the Journal's style, contains an abstract (if applicable), keywords, correct referencing, and adheres to the appropriate blinding system. If any elements are missing, the author is asked to complete them before the manuscript is sent for review.

Once sent for review, the manuscript is evaluated by the assigned reviewers, who subsequently provide review reports to the Chief Editor. The review period typically ranges from 2 to 6 weeks, depending on the discipline. Clear instructions are provided to reviewers, either in the form of a review report or a set of questions to consider.

Based on the reviewers' comments, the Chief Editor makes a decision, which can include accepting the manuscript without further revision, accepting it after minor revisions, requesting resubmission with significant changes, or rejecting it. The author receives an acceptance or rejection letter accordingly. If revisions are requested, the author is expected to address the reviewers' comments and submit an updated version.

After the review process, the manuscript is passed on to the Copy Editor, responsible for correcting referencing according to the journal's style and layout. Once the Copy Editor completes their work, the manuscript proceeds to the Layout Editor, who structures the original manuscript, including figures and tables, into an article and prepares it in various formats, such as PDF and HTML. The Layout Editor then forwards the manuscript to the Proof Editor.

The Proof Editor confirms that the manuscript has undergone all the necessary stages and is ready for publication.

Reviewers for each paper work independently, unaware of each other's identities. If there is a discrepancy in the decisions of the two reviewers (accept/reject), additional reviewers may be assigned by the Editor.

The Editorial team ensures reasonable quality control for reviews. If authors raise credible concerns about a reviewer's feedback, steps are taken to ensure objectivity and maintain high academic standards. Additional reviewers may be assigned when doubt arises regarding the reviews' objectivity or quality.

Basic Principles for Reviewers:

Reviewers should:

Only agree to review manuscripts within their expertise and assess them in a timely manner.
Maintain confidentiality and refrain from disclosing details of the manuscript or its review beyond what is released by the journal.
Avoid using information obtained during the review process for personal advantage or to disadvantage others.
Disclose any potential conflicting interests and seek guidance from the journal if unsure.
Avoid being influenced by the authors' characteristics or commercial considerations, remaining objective and constructive in their reviews.
Recognize that peer review is a reciprocal endeavor and fulfill their fair share of reviewing promptly.
Provide accurate and true personal and professional information to the journal.
Understand that impersonating others during the review process is considered serious misconduct.